JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 8^th day of October 2024)

The short question that arises for consideration in this CRP is whether the 1^st Additional District Court, Ernakulam, which has been designated as a Special Court to try the cases involving disputes in Malankara Church as per G.O.(Rt) No.1532/76/Home dated 30.6.1976, later which has been declared as a permanent court alone, has jurisdiction to resolve all the disputes in the State.

2. O.P.No.1 of 2015 was filed before the Sub Court, Kattappana, under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute a suit by the petitioners herein. The 1^st respondent is St.Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Idukki, represented by the trustee. When the application preferred under Section 92 CPC came up for consideration, the respondents raised an objection that the apex court in SLP(C)

No.16579/2013 had passed an order on 3.3.2017, wherein it was specifically stated that the special court is of a permanent nature with effect from 31.5.1981 and all disputes has to be filed before the Special court. Therefore, the 1^st Additional Sub court, Ernakulam alone, has the jurisdiction to decide the cases relating to Malankara church. The Sub Judge, by the order dated 5.7.2017, decided to return the original petition to the petitioners for filing the same before the special court and since the petitioners did not file an application under Order 7 Rule 10A CPC after the intimation was given to the plaintiffs, the petition was returned, and the parties were directed to appear before the special court on 18.9.2017. The said order is being challenged in this CRP.

3. The counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this court in O.P.(C.) No.3650 of 2017, dated 15^th February 2018, wherein this issue had come up before this court. It was a case in which a suit was filed as O.S.No. 629 of 2017 before the Munsiff court, Muvattupuzha. The defendants prayed for the return of the plaint in view of the pronouncement of the order dated 3.3.2017 in S.L.P.(C.) No.16579 of 2013. This court, after an elaborate hearing of counsel on both sides, held in para 13 and 14 as follows:

“13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases strongly contended on the basis of Ext.P6 order in Special Leave Petition No. 16579 of 2013 that the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the Special Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter in terms of the order passed by the High Court and therefore it has exclusive jurisdiction to receive a plaint and decide the matter in dispute.

14. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the submissions by contending that in the order passed by the Supreme Court on Special Leave Petition, Ext.P7 information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the High Court was referred only to dispose of the case. What was decided by the Supreme Court is that in the light of the observations in the information furnished, the Supreme Court did not find any further challenge to be decided in the matter since the Special Court too has jurisdiction to decide the case. It is the submission that neither Section 15 of the Code nor Section 11 of the Act was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. And also the Supreme Court did not make any pronouncement to the effect that dehors the provisions the Special Court for trial of Church Cases has exclusive jurisdiction to try all such cases and no other civil court shall have jurisdiction to try the same. On a careful reading of Ext.P6 order in the Special Leave Petition, it can be seen that the Supreme Court, without going into other issues, found that the 1^st Additional District Court, Ernakulam (Special Court) has jurisdiction to decide the matter and therefore, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Every decision or order should be understood in the background of the facts and circumstances involved in each case. I do not find any reason to hold that the Supreme Court in